About your Search

20130421
20130421
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6
. so these issues should be seen as, it ties in with other foreign policy agendas. tom, now at georgetown university, has written very adequately on foreign policy and religious freedom. >> i think we have time for one more question. perhaps in the front row here, we have a hand. we have a microphone, microphone approaching, approaching. and we'll have just a moment left. >> hi eric and all of you. i was the president of the first north korea freedom coalition. i just wanted to mention something about the state department, kind of a little history. just, we have an infiltration of islamist sympathizers. and i'm actually concerned about that. [inaudible] just something broke yesterday. john kerry's son-in-law, which didn't come out in the vetting process, his son-in-law is an iranian. and iranian americans with very close world is in iran. and that is, it's a breakdown of the vetting process. and so i will ask you all, are you concerned about this? >> i would have to know more about the iranians. most iranian americans of course our strong opponents of every regime i don't kn
the foreign- policy support. famously, they both worked to speak harsh truths about the unsustainability of the soviet union, something that coincided with the implosion of the soviet union under its own contradiction. some conservatives will tell you it was almost sort of like moses parting the red sea. they tear it all down. i don't think it was quite that. but clearly the truth telling to the soviet union was not a relevant and gave enormous hope to dissidents working behind the eastern block. domestically, they had a tremendously important impact on each other. they were both trying something, not identical but something very radical that was a kind of break with the economic policies and domestic policies of the past. the fact they were not isolated, that they could support to -- point to someone else on the other side of the ocean in charge of the important country who was doing the same thing, that make quite a difference, i think. you can see in the tributes paid to lady thatcher that people who work closely with president reagan said it made a difference. there is this impressiv
plitations for civil liberties questions, potentially foreign policy questions. i want to listen for a second to president bush after 9/11 just as a reminder where we were as we talked about what happened in that moment. let's take a listen. >> on september 11th, enemies of freedom committed an act of war against our country. our war on terror begins without data. but it does not end there. it will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated. [ applause ] >> so this set out the parameters,ary that we have been working under for the past decade or more. >> yeah. that was the global war on terror. there was a big gap between that rhetoric we just heard and the legal authority that the president actually had, which under the 2001 authorization of force was to only pursue al qaeda, the taliban and groups directly found responsible for 9/11. we'll continue to have that legal friction both on civil liberties and foreign policy questions. the first instinct to combat is that people are rightfully outraged at these killers. part of what they want to do is
by presidents. this is just on the domestic side. on the foreign-policy side presidents have even more power. the president plays a far larger role in the determination of u.s. policy and congress plays a far smaller role than the framers intended. the recent illustration is president obama decided our military would be involved in intervening in libya would be his decision even though congress is supposed to decide when we send troops into battle. but obama and many presidents have decided on their own without waiting for congress. presidents also reach agreements with other countries without congressional participation unilaterally decide about terminating a treaty when we change from recognizing taiwan as a government to mainland china. it was president carter who unilaterally terminated the mutual defense in taiwan. presidents decide on their own whether allowing u.s. citizens to travel abroad. it was a presidential decision. he also revived our immigration policy. when congress failed to create a path for young immigrants to be brought and -- president implemented his own d.r.e.a.m. act
u.s. foreign policy. and as that rises, hostility rises, rage rises and people want to reach out against the united states. so this radicalization is an issue that the u.s. government has been focused on for many, many years certainly since before 9/11 but certainly since 9/11. >> i read an interesting article, i think it was in the national review, but i have to go back and check that about the fact that we know longer sort of patriotize those who come, legal immigrants who come here. and looks at europe and says part of what happened in britain was that there were just these separate communities, no sense of common community. and it seems to me that these -- at least the older brother represented that sense of alienation. >> possibly. one of the things that we found is people that have a strong core and very strong values regarding anything can't be brainwashed into going against their values. >> right. >> he was looking for something. and let's say that he was radicalized in chechnya, in russia. he was already of the mindset to -- well, he would have been a sitting duck had he
right or wrong, you'll never get in trouble. if you want to be critical of foreign policy because you belief, as a citizen -- remember, we have a thing called the constitution. all men are created equal. everybody, at least from the beginning, white, male, 2 1, with property, could vote. since then we've expanded -- well, i'm not being sarcastic because in terms of the world to have any white male who was sovereign, that we were sovereign. the american revolution declared the people sovereign rather than a king or queen. you couldn't have a king or queen taking your land away because they had finch it to you through sovereign rights. so if every citizen has a right to say what they should or should not do in our government, we would think we could respect that, and yet at the very beginning of the iraq war, when susan sarandon and tim robbins spoke out against the war, they had their invitation to talk to the baseball hall of fame withdrawn. and right after that i had a crew from fox news come to my house to interview me, because i don't go to the studios anymore. they want me? they
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)